| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/04/2012 03:34:27 PM · #26 |
I can see the OP's point about the other guy's shot. The lightning looks really fake to me and the Opera House sticks out because the lighting is so much different on it than anything else. I don't really like that shot at all.
The OP's photo has some problems too (color cast on the foreground etc..) but personally I like it much better than the lightning shot. But that's what makes the world go round, differing opinions. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 03:38:10 PM · #27 |
| That kind of competitions is not really fair (can competitions ever be fair?...) , we can't say if a collage is better than a real photo. To tell the truth I don't think that your image is amazing but at the same time the fake lightnings in the other photo are awful... |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 03:41:10 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
...Unless the "judging' is tightly controlled, submitting your images to an internet photography competition is a crap shoot. I'm not the greatest photographer on Earth, but I know good photography, good illustration, and good art when I see it and can vote accordingly. The problem is that I'm not the majority. |
no problemo. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 03:57:01 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by kgeary:
Here's the problem with online photography competitions:
More often than not the people voting are not voting for the best technical image. They are voting for the feeling the image gives them. |
I wouldn't say that was a problem. I'd say that's pretty much how it should be.
Originally posted by kgeary:
If you take a cell phone picture of something miraculous you'll score higher than if you have the most technical image of a less dramatic scene.. |
Again. How it should be in my opinion.
'There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.' - Ansel Adams. etc etc
Message edited by author 2012-07-04 15:57:36. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 04:37:12 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by kgeary:
Here's the problem with online photography competitions:
More often than not the people voting are not voting for the best technical image. They are voting for the feeling the image gives them. |
I wouldn't say that was a problem. I'd say that's pretty much how it should be.
Originally posted by kgeary:
If you take a cell phone picture of something miraculous you'll score higher than if you have the most technical image of a less dramatic scene.. |
Again. How it should be in my opinion.
'There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept.' - Ansel Adams. etc etc |
Exactly.
And yet people here espouse that technically flawless images of junk should get some baseline high vote on that merit alone. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 04:51:38 PM · #31 |
So, that site says "which image is better?" and people choose between two images. Sounds simple.
Define "better"
What criteria? Different for each and every voter, contributor. Some will give weight to technical, some will look for light, composition, mood, subject in varying degrees, and some will just vote on which one they "like" best.
The technical objections noted for one image were not immediately apparent to me at a glance, and I thought both images were okay. No "wow" factor for me in either image. Had they both been in a FS here, I probably would have voted both in the 5-6 range.
Expecting others to even notice the same wonders and defects as we do ourselves, much less attribute the same value to those things even if noticed, is pointless and misguided, a waste of time and energy, unless the fuming about it is the valued thing.
Odd, to me, that DPC forums are now attracting "voting wrong" complaint threads from other sites......
|
|
|
|
07/04/2012 06:03:13 PM · #32 |
There's a lot of back and forth in this thread that I don't care to read but wanted to thank you for introducing me to this site.
Seems like a funner and less uppity 1x. Joined it today. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 08:00:34 PM · #33 |
To the OP. I prefer your shot considerably. It may have a colour cast problem, but if you addressed that issue then imo it should look pretty good. On the other hand I don't like the other shot at all. The lightning looks like it's been done with a brush or some inferior plugin, and the relocation of the Opera House is awful.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2012 09:18:54 PM · #34 |
As others have noted, it's not quite fair that the two were even included together, but beyond that, I'll break down how I'd vote if they were side by side and I did a voting here.
Your shot is generally pleasing, but lacks a really defined focus and intent, but it also makes me feel like I'm there. I'd place it somewhere between a 5 and a 6, probably going with 6 as a final vote. It's got some issues, but it's got some merits, I like the feeling of being there.
His is obviously difficult to compare to your entry, but if I were to vote on it here, with the assumption that it's under expert editing, I'd give it a 5. There was a decent end result intended, visualized. The amalgamation isn't great, but it also isn't quite National Enquirer bad, either. Any badly edited expert entries get very low votes from me, because they look horribly fake. His looks pretty fake, but it isn't painfully so for me. He tried and with some refinement, could make things much better.
If I saw the two together, in a completely open competition, yours would be the clear winner, since I think the first thing you need to avoid when you're combining photos in editing is a garish unrealistic look. It's very hard to do, but if you're portraying it as a photo, it's your first goal- make it believable. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 09:22:42 PM · #35 |
cd payne i read your original rant, here's my response. If 400 of your exact clones were voting, you'd see it where you think it belongs.
Its possible the voters come from all walks, please try to understand that this is part of the deal when you put your image up for voting.
Technically sound music does not attract the most audience. Technically sound photos are similar in that respect. In fact, there is an open argument over what is technically sound when it comes to art. Add in the ignorance of lighting, location, and you've got a nice bit of confusion.
As amazing as the visual system is, and as good as we are at catching certain things, other things fool us easily. If you take all these points into consideration, you may come to view your dissatisfaction as unnecessary. Relax, its good to be technically good and better to be not hung up on it.
Just my 2 pennies.
Message edited by author 2012-07-04 21:23:54. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 09:22:42 PM · #36 |
somehow posted the same thing twice -.-
Message edited by author 2012-07-04 21:23:21. |
|
|
|
07/04/2012 09:54:27 PM · #37 |
So... This isn't the only site where people do not vote properly...
Good to know... ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/04/2012 11:04:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by jagar:
[quote=Yo_Spiff] Seems to me that the voting systems both there and here are merely measures of popular appeal and do not always reflect artistic value or photographic worth. Here we have some other metrics and recognitions that we can use to measure whether or not an image was successful, even if it misses the mass appeal target. |
+1 |
|
|
|
07/06/2012 07:36:04 AM · #39 |
It's also one of those sites where you can cherry-pick your best work and enter it. Though that's nice for the ego, it doesn't have the same gratification for doing well as it does here when you're shooting with time constraint6s and within the confines of a theme.
I just quickly threw in a few pics, and they're doing pretty well, but it's just not the same as winning a ribbon or Top 10 here....
|
|
|
|
07/06/2012 11:35:27 AM · #40 |
Just won an award over on Pixoto.....in one day. For being in the Top 20% in the Fine Art category....
Pixoto Page
.....with this image that didn't even crack 6.000 in a Free Study! LOL!!!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 01:24:36 PM EDT.
